Categories

Related sites

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it…”

This is just the start of a calamitous misreading of a famous passage from the Kalama Sutta. I’ve dealt with a libertarian mistranslation of this verse elsewhere, but this version is different.

But here’s the full quote, lifted from one of the well-known quotes sites that litter the web:

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”Buddha quotes (Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.)

It’s ironic that this, one of the commonest Fake Buddha Quotes, is about not believing things just because you’ve read them somewhere, but for many people the assumption seems to be, “It must be true — I saw it on a website!”

So first let me state that the Buddha was not a “Hindu Prince.” He was not a “Hindu” and he was not a “prince.” We don’t know what, if any, religious tradition the Buddha-to-be followed in his youth, and the first mention that’s made of any religious endeavors is his encounters with the two teachers Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta. These two teachers followed meditative traditions, but it’s anachronistic to refer to them, or the Buddha, as Hindus. The Buddha himself came from a Republic in which there were, of course, no kings and no princes. In the early text there is no mention of him being a prince or his father being a king, and it’s clear that he lived at a time when the last republics (including the one in which he was born) were being swallowed up by the newly-emergent monarchies. Several hundred years later, monarchies were well-established, republics were unthinkable, and so the Buddha was seen as having been born in a kingdom and (because people like their heroes) he was seen as an heir to that kindgom — an heir, no less, that rejected kingship for an even more noble spiritual “career.”

“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”

I won’t go through a point-by-point comparison, but look at the two criteria for acceptance of teachings:

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.

In the original quote, accepting something because it “agrees with reason” would seem to be rejected, because “logical conjecture” and “inference” have been rejected, at least as sufficient bases for accepting a teaching as valid. It’s not that logic is rejected as such, just that it can’t be relied on. What is needed is experience. We need to “know for ourselves.”

What we need to know for ourselves is not whether a teaching “agrees with reason” but whether when put into practice they are skillful, blameless, praised by the wise, and lead to welfare and to happiness.

This garbled version of the Kalama Sutta appeared in a 1956 book called “2500 Buddha Jayanti,” celebrating the 2500th anniversary of the Buddha’s parinirvana. I haven’t read the book, but this recasting of the Buddha’s teaching may have been done to make Buddhism appear more “rational.”

PS. The exact quote found in “2500 Buddha Jayanti” (page 39) is as follows (the typos and grammatical errors are in the original):

Do not believe in anything (simply) because you have heard it ; Do not believe in traditions, because they been handed down for many generations ; Do not believe in anything, because it is spoken and rumoured by many ; Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books ; But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

However, it goes back further. A commenter below pointed out that the same quote is found in the first of three lectures given in 1951 by Sayagyi U Ba Khin. These lectures are available online here and are also published in a book called “What Buddhism Is.”

There the quote is:

Do not believe in what you have heard; do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations; do not believe in anything because it is rumoured and spoken by many; do not believe merely because a written statement of some old sage is produced; do not believe in conjectures; do not believe in that as truth to which you have become attached from habit; do not believe merely the authority of your teachers and elders. After observation and analysis, when it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and gain of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

This is almost identical, the differences being mere changes in wording. This is no doubt the prototype of the “Buddha Jayanti” quote. Unfortunately my local library has been unable to get me a copy through Inter-Library Loan, so I can’t tell if Sayagyi U Ba Khin was the speaker at the conference who used this quote. However, I have searched the Google Book version linked to above, and no results appear for his name.

So at the moment my hypothesis is that in his 1951 lecture, Sayagyi U Ba Khin was loosely paraphrasing the Kalama Sutta from memory, and that someone else (possibly taking this to be a direct scriptural quotation) tidied it up a little and presented it in the context of a talk at the Buddha Jayanti conference, leading to it appearing in this book and thus gaining wider currency.

It would be ironic if I was making definitive statements about the book “2500 Buddha Jayanti” or claiming that a quote could be found in it when in fact it couldn’t, but since I make it clear that my speculation is in fact speculation and since the quote in question actually does come from that book, I fail to see the ironic angle. Perhaps you could elucidate, Shane?

I have made many experiences of this quote…basically use all bodily faculties to accept any mental ideas thoughts beliefs etc and play with this without getting personal with idea…eventually the body gives the result…. For example, recently I have been some so common sense quotes… Eg all is fair in love and war… What does these quotes really do our cultures and mind sets….

You know, I’ve seen various iterations of both versions over the years and have never really considered the difference. My reading of both concurs with your reading of the original. Perhaps that’s because, as someone who has studied and practiced Buddhism for many years, I assume that the experiential must reign supreme.

Once you understand that principle, the revised quote, in my opinion, actually conveys the Buddha’s concept in a way much more understandable to 21st century audiences.

Ray I agree with your statement of “perhaps there is value in both versions.” I didn’t really starting looking into the Buddha’s teachings until a few years ago when I read a version of this Kalama Sutta misquote. Back then after reading it I was frankly stunned for a moment that a prominent religious figure would instruct his followers in the ways of free inquiry and advocate for them not to accepting any religious teacher’s teachings as truth by default, including his own. Being raised as a Christian, it was really a moment of spiritual joy as I contemplated the quote. After doing some research on it I learned that it wasn’t a direct Buddha quote, but that misquote still led me to read about the Kalama Sutta and Buddha which has been a spiritually rewarding experience. These days I just look at the misquote as a modern derivation of the Kalama Sutta, which as you said can make it more accessible to the modern world and act as a signpost directing seekers of truth to the core Buddhist material.

I am not someone who has practiced or studied Buddhism for many years, but nevertheless I have an interpretation that it similar to Ray’s.

First, I fail to see how the ‘internet quote’ is more “fake”, since both are translated into English and interpreted by individuals living in different cultural and historical contexts. And therefor I do not understand -especially with what I perceive to be the essence of this quote in mind- why anyone would put more confidence in the ‘original’. It is a bit of a paradox.

Second, I think the essence is not to be found in the difference between to know something from experience or to agree with reason (after observation and analysis).
Actually, ‘reason’ could very much refer to ‘perception of what is just’, i.e. “is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all”.

It basically very much seems exactly the same as what is meant with ‘knowing from experience’. Note that the internet version mentions analysis/reasoning from observation, not just merely reasoning. Is observation not experience? And is reasoning not an act based on experiencing the ‘social world’?

I’m confused by your confusion. The fake quote is not a “translation,” in that it doesn’t reflect the content of the original source, and in fact seems to contradict it. In translation we have to take into account what was said and what we can validly assume was meant. Simply making something up and putting it in the mouth of the Buddha is not translation.

As for your interpretations, to take one example, “reasoning” is clearly not the same as “knowing through experience.” We can certainly reason about our experience, but in this context to reason means to think about something in a theoretical way. Such reasoning can produce valid results, but I think we all recognize that people who try to reason about topics in which they have no personal experience tend to come to false conclusions: garbage in, garbage out.

I know you will defend your point of view till the end of days but… To begin with, this is not a “fake” quote. It is what it’s called an “interpreted” quote. Every time you translate something into a certain language the process implies an interpretation of what the original says. More often than not, more so when it comes to certain languages, it is impossible to translate word by word since it would not made sense in English, for example. As an old old Tuscan proverb goes, “Traduttore, Traditore!” Translator, traitor. In many instances, translating a certain text requires a complete rewriting of it. More than that, what those behind the so-called fake Buddha quote have done was to clarify the meaning of the original. The word by word original can get confusing, and your interpretation of it makes a perfect case for that:

– “In the original quote, accepting something because it “agrees with reason” would seem to be rejected, because “logical conjecture” and “inference” have been rejected, at least as sufficient bases for accepting a teaching as valid. It’s not that logic is rejected as such, just that it can’t be relied on. What is needed is experience. We need to “know for ourselves.” –

Not true that,”because it “agrees with reason” would seem to be rejected, because “logical conjecture” and “inference” have been rejected…” According to our dictionaries, inference is “a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.” You may want to rewrite and rethink that since there is some serious disagreement with reason and rational logic there.

As for the “2500 Buddha Jayanti” that version of the quote has nothing to do with the “libertarians,” as you claim. This book was put together by a group of reputable Buddhist scholars, in 1956. The version of the Kalama Suta you refer to is a translation made by Thanissaro Bhikkhu in 1994. He is an American Buddhist who converted to a form of Buddhism practiced in a certain monastery in Tayland in the 1970s, when it was very trendy to do it. So, I am not sure I would put my money on the accuracy of his translation. Even so, as stated, there is no real difference in the message conveyed by both versions. More importantly, that message is much more clear in the 1956 version, the one most of us work with today, and for good reason. (Made a copy of this comment just in case it accidentally disappears from your blog.)

You say “I know you will defend your point of view till the end of days…” but actually you don’t “know” this at all.

“To begin with, this is not a ‘fake’ quote. It is what it’s called an ‘interpreted’ quote.”

It’s called an “interpreted quote” by whom? I’m unfamiliar with this term, and looking it up on Google I found no evidence that this is a term that’s used at all widely. In fact, one of the few results that comes up is from Scott Adam’s blog:

The cousin to the manufactured quote, and even more dangerous, is the interpreted quote. That’s when a person with low reading comprehension, or bad intentions, or both, misinterprets a quote, then replaces the actual quote with the misinterpretation. That path might look like this:

Original quote: “Some men are rapists. Society needs to punish them.”

Morph One: “He says men are rapists.”

Morph Two: “He says all men are rapists by nature.”

Morph Three: “He excuses rape because he says it’s natural.”

“As for the ‘2500 Buddha Jayanti’ that version of the quote has nothing to do with the ‘libertarians,’ as you claim.”

Please point out to me exactly where I made the claim that the “Jayanti” version of this quote had anything to do with libertarians. I did point out that I’ve dealt with a (separate) libertarian mistranslation of this verse elsewhere. The 2,500 Jayanti version predates the libertarian version by decades.

Bodhi, defending something “to the end of days” is never to be taken literarily. We learn that in grammar school. It was obviously said in jest.

Sorry you could not find “interpreted quote” in Google. I used that, and I am entitled to put words in a sequence that would convey a certain point. Just because you could not find it in Google it does not mean it has no meaning. I’ll make sure you’ll find in Google from now on.

Am I misreading you when you state that “I’ve dealt with a libertarian mistranslation of this verse elsewhere, but this version is different?”

You did not addressed the fact that the “fake Buddha quote,” as you call this wonderful authentic Buddha quote, was actually a translation buy a group genuine Buddhist scholars, as opposed to your version being the work of a 1970’s individual converted to a form of Buddhism which has nothing to do with the authentic, the original Buddha school of thought.

At least please refrain from calling “fake” something you disagree with while having little supporting evidence for your version of the story. This quote is clearly something religious organizations hate because it annuls their otherwise illegitimate authority. For that reason alone it is certainly not fake, it makes sense and it is fully supported by rational logic. Once again, if you want to embrace a dope, love, peace converted Buddhist’s dubious interpretation of an ancient text, at least do not spread false rumors, and yet who could stop you from doing that. One must reach his own conclusions, though, and as an ancient Buddha saying goes, “Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in… a blog on the Internet.” I don’t think that’s fake.

I’m afraid it’s never really “obvious” online, and often offline, when someone is joking or whether they intend their words to be taken literally. But it wasn’t the expression “to the end of days” that I was critiquing, it was your claim that you “know” whether or not I’m open to changing my mind. That is not something that can be known.

Sorry you could not find “interpreted quote” in Google. I used that, and I am entitled to put words in a sequence that would convey a certain point.

You’re entitled to write anything you want, but what you wrote was “It is what’s called an ‘interpreted’ quote.” If you’d said “It’s what I’d call an ‘interpreted’ quote,” that would be one thing. But to say it’s “called” an ‘interpreted’ quote indicates that this is some kind of widely known term, when in fact it isn’t.

“You did not addressed the fact that the “fake Buddha quote,” as you call this wonderful authentic Buddha quote, was actually a translation buy a group genuine Buddhist scholars.”

I didn’t address this because it’s a nonsensical position. You’re committing the fallacy of “appealing to authority.” Just because the translation was done by a “scholar” doesn’t mean it’s accurate. Lots of scholars produce inaccurate translations. Also, I very much doubt you could name the “scholar” (or “scholars,” as you insist) who concocted this quote. What was his//her/their track record in translation? Did he/she/they even know Pali? You’re simply creating a story in your mind in an attempt to validate this quote.

In calling this a “wonderful authentic Buddha quote” you’re committing the logical fallacy of “proof by repeated assertion.” Doubling down and repeating that something is the case, regardless of contradiction, and without evidence (for which you’d have to refer to the original Pali or a valid translation) doesn’t make your case any stronger. This is simply a propaganda technique.

The thing is, what’s paramount in translation is representing accurately what the original says. If you change the message in a substantive way, then it’s a bad translation. It’s even a fake translation, if the inaccuracies are the result of intentional bias.

As for your disparagement of Bhikkhu Thanissaro, I didn’t address that because it also didn’t really deserve to be addressed. It was in fact nothing more than an ad hominem attack, and thus another logical fallacy.

You wrote: “He is an American Buddhist who converted to a form of Buddhism practiced in a certain monastery in Tayland (sic) in the 1970s, when it was very trendy to do it. So, I am not sure I would put my money on the accuracy of his translation.”

The fact that Thanissaro is American is irrelevant. What possible bearing could his nationality have on his ability to translate Pali accurately? The fact that he “converted to a form of Buddhism practiced in a certain monastery” is also irrelevant. He became (and remains) a rather orthodox Theravadin Bhikkhu. Your attempt to make it sound like he joined some kind of weird and obscure branch of Buddhism is laughable, as is your rather sad insinuation that he became a monk because it was “trendy” to do so.

Perhaps you’re also disparaging of Bhikkhu Bodhi (another American!) who became a bhikkhu in the 1970s (when, apparently, it was “trendy”) to do so. But here’s his translation:

Come, Kalamas, do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view by pondering it, by the seeming competence [of a speaker], or because you think, “This ascetic is our guru.” But when you know for yourselves: “These things are wholesome; these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise; these things, if accepted and undertaken, lead to welfare and happiness,” then you should live in accordance with them.

You really think that “But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it” means the same as “But when you know for yourselves: ‘These things are wholesome; these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise; these things, if accepted and undertaken, lead to welfare and happiness,’ then you should live in accordance with them”?

You really think that the emphasis on accepting a teaching because it “agrees with reason” is the same as “do not go … by logical reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by reasoned cogitation”?

Well, we have you arguing that something is “obvious” when in fact it cannot be obvious, implying that a term is in common use when in fact it’s not, using the fallacy of the appeal to authority, the fallacy of proof by repeated assertion, and the fallacy of argumentation ad hominem. All this suggests to me that you may have some fundamental difficulties in thinking logically about the differences between the fake and real versions of this passage.

‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.” –Too bad there is no mention of anything being true.

You’re right, Joel. There is no mention of truth in that extract from the sutta. But the Kalamas were fundamentally asking about how to discern the truth of competing spiritual teachings. What the Buddha’s responding to is this question:

“Lord, there are some brahmans & contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. And then other brahmans & contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?”

It’s interesting that the Buddha’s reply doesn’t mention truth. In a way he may have been saying is “truth, spiritually speaking, is what works, in terms of liberating you from suffering.” He’s more interested in method than in confirming particular statements as factually correct. But he does engage in a Socratic dialog with the Kalamas, in which he leads them to see how his teachings are effective (and therefore, presumably, true).

Thanks for the information. I like the “fake” quote because it’s easier for us to read in modern times. It’s good to know where it was interpreted from and the original. If anything, I’ll be sure NOT to use it as a Buddha quote, but will still use it.

.. so .. wait.. are we supposed to believe THIS because we read it on here? Your interpretation is exactly that: YOURS. We all choose to believe what we want, and that’s how it becomes our truth. If you insist on there being a universal truth, you’re delusional.

Ok, so I think what is important is naming our standpoint as part of our argument. As a white, male who has practiced Buddhist meditation primarily in the tradition of S.N. Goenka, but also inspired by the teachings of Thich Naht Hanh, I am familiar with this passage. Obviously, I am coming to it from a Western, contemporary, perspective. I believe it is an important text, as it describes the movement of the Dhamma/Dharma from culture to culture. So, I think this hairsplitting is actually great. What I would like to look at is this excerpt from the “fake” text: “after observation and analysis.” I am wondering if we can understand observation and analysis as experiential? I think so. I know that Buddhist texts, writers, scholars, practitioners, speak of “direct knowing.” However, I think there is a lot to question and think about. Is anything ever “direct?” Or, as symbol making beings are we always “interpreting” our experiences? I’m no expert, and I know there are whole bunch of experts out there in epistemology, ontology, hermeneutics, and the like. I do think it is too soon to say that this or that is “fake.” I think you need to go deeper. I know Thich Nhat Hanh somewhere argues that the historical Buddha didn’t actually speak Pali, or at least not as his first tongue. Pali was a kind of common, or commercial language. Who knows. But you will have those who will argue that everything outside of Pali is translation, therefore to understand the “true” dhamma one must read Pali, or get it from a Pali scholar. What I like about the above passage is that it draws a line in the sand. Buddha is saying that we are not going to keep doing things a certain way just because that’s the way we have always been doing it. As in Fiddler on the Roof: “Tradition.” He was breaking with the past in the pursuit, not of truth, but of freedom.

“I am wondering if we can understand observation and analysis as experiential?”

I think they are.

“…as symbol making beings are we always “interpreting” our experiences?”

I suspect that all experience is interpretation. My take is that we need to purify our interpretations of aversion, craving, and delusion, so that we can see more clearly. Awakening is supposed to be a state of “seeing things as they really are,” but to me that simply implies that we’ve let go of false and unhelpful interpretations.

For example, a key delusion (which necessarily entails clinging and aversion) is the interpretation that we have a “self” that owns our experiences and actions. We can lose that delusion, and see more clearly that what we are is not unified and not “owned” by any central part of us. The “self” we used to believe in is as mythic as Santa Claus, Jehovah, or Brahma. We’re still interpreting our experience in many ways but we’re now doing so without the obstacle of a major delusion.

The Buddha didn’t speak Pali, for sure, but he spoke one or more languages that would have been very similar to it, and that were really related dialects — quite easy to translate. I think more important is that what we’ve received as “the word of the Buddha” is really lecture notes that have been passed on, edited, and interpreted over centuries. Anyone who has lectured will know that even the best lecture notes are a hollow representation of the original presentation!

In this particular case, though, we have a Pali original, which is as close as we’re going to get to what the Buddha originally said, and some fairly clear misrepresentations of those which can be shown to have originated very recently. We can also look at the cultural context of western individualism, and be fairly sure that these misrepresentations are an attempt to find “evidence” for something like western individualism in the Buddhist tradition, in order to make Buddhism seem more palatable.

Wow. How funny! I cam late to the conversation but …
I never fail to be amazed, astonished, and yes, at time, amused at the way present-day, europeans and euro-centric ‘would-be authorities and ‘intellectuals’ work back and forth on something as out-of-this [present-day] world as a Buddhist quote! Wow.
Are any of you aware of elderly, women and children, veterans living homeless on the streets of the US? Have any one of you ever read anything by any African-American, Latino, Asian, Gay/Lesbian Writers? How DO you gain so much authority on something so totally unreal? Seriously. Yawl sound just like the defenders of the cross, none of whom has ever dared to love his neighbor as himself.

OH, I forgot to say thanks. That quote [a version of it, anyway], was on the front flap of a book I read while in pursuit of my Master’s Degree n Christian Education at the Premiere institution of Liberation Theology!
I wanted to use it to open my local radio talk show this month, being it is African-American history month! You see the connection, right? I figured it!
LivewellToday!

While there’s certainly nothing positive about misattributing a quote to someone, I find it almost irrelevant in this case. Whether Buddha said this or not, it’s still an incredibly powerful phrase and a great philosophy to live your life by.

Whether the Buddha said this or not is irrelevant to whether it’s true or not. But if we want to base a spiritual practice on what the Buddha taught, then knowing (to the extent that such a thing is possible) what the Buddha did and did not say makes the quote’s authenticity or otherwise very relevant. Also, if we’re interested in accuracy, then it’s relevant, too. As Einstein said, “Whoever is careless with truth in small matters cannot be trusted in important affairs.”

I really like your juxtaposition between the two quotes, and the clarification of what the original meaning was. The main difference is that the original admonition is to base one’s views on personal experience and practical results. It is not enough, in other words, to think things through logically, one must test those theories in practice, and see which ones produce a happy life. Buddha was advocating a personalized scientific approach, based on empirical observation rather than deductive inference.

However, your presentation is marred by the claim that Buddha was not born a Hindu. Of course he was. There wasn’t much else to be during that time. The whole of the culture was dominated by Brahmanism, by Vedic rituals and beliefs, and by the various forms of religion that all come under the broad umbrella of “Hinduism”. The teachers he had as a youth were clearly teaching various forms of Hindu asceticism and meditation practice. And when he began to teach, the Buddha was highly critical of these, and even of the political hold Brahmanism had over people through the caste system, which he also rejected.

As to whether Buddha was actually a prince or not, we really don’t know. All the various traditional stories of his life say he was a prince, but those could be mythical, created to make a point about Buddha’s process of recognizing the impermanence of all things. We’ll never actually know. But throughout Buddhism, for at least the last 2,000 years, it’s been taught and accepted that he was born a Hindu Prince. So that’s not something made-up by the author of this quote. It’s simply a basic element of Buddhist tradition.

I’ve already rebutted the claims you’ve made here, but you say “throughout Buddhism, for at least the last 2,000 years, it’s been taught and accepted that he was born a Hindu Prince.” I’m certainly not aware of anything in the Pali scriptures that would back you up. In any event, if Buddhists, hundreds of years after the Buddha’s death, assumed he had been “born a Hindu” (something, actually, that is an impossibility because it’s so anachronistic) this would only tell us what they, at a time when historical awareness was close to zero, assumed about the past — not what was actually the case. They made similar assumptions about the Buddha’s homeland having been a kingdom, and the Buddha, therefore, having been a prince—not realizing that the Shakyas lived in a republican oligarchy. It’s not at all true to say, as you do, that “we really don’t know” whether the Buddha was a prince or not. He could not have been a prince because the Shakyans did not have a monarchy, and therefore had no princes.

You see how a religious tradition can make a complete dog’s breakfast of its own history?

As for religious alternatives at that time, there were many. There was Jainism, which was a major religious force at the time the Buddha was teaching. It was, incidentally, a school focused on the kinds of ascetic practices you’re assuming must have been “forms of Hindu asceticism,” and it predates Buddhism, possibly by millennia. Some scholars think it has its roots in the Indus Valley civilization, which predates the arrival of the Vedas.

If it’s true that the Buddha practiced asceticism for a while (and not in all of his autobiographical discourses is this part of the narrative) it may be that they were Jaina practices. In fact, I’m not aware of the Brahmins having practiced asceticism at all! (Was it, at that time, even partly an ascetic tradition? I think not, although many young Brahmins rejected the vedas and went off to join the shramanas.) Speaking of which, also older than Buddhism were the six shramana schools of philosophy, some of which were materialist/atheist and all of which rejected the vedas. The Buddha was well aware of these, knew the names of their founders, and critiqued their teachings.

There’s no evidence whatsoever that the Buddha’s two named teachers, Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta, were followers of the Vedas. In fact they seem to have been Shramanas. For a start, they meditated. Do you see any evidence from the Pali canon that orthodox Brahmins meditated? I don’t recall any. I may have missed or forgotten it, of course. I’ll keep my eyes open.

As far as I’m aware, we know nothing definite about the religious beliefs and practices of the Buddha’s family. However, their society does not seem to have been divided into four varnas (castes), suggesting that the Vedas had not influenced their social and religious practices. There are references to “Brahmin villages” in the Shakyan territory, suggesting that Brahmins were not well integrated into Shakyan society. The Shakyans considered themselves, as warriors, to be superior to the Brahmins, which is a profoundly non-Vedic position! And so the evidence is that the Buddha did not grow up in the caste-centric, Veda-ridden, Brahmin dominated society that you are (anachronistically) calling “Hindu.”

Ironically, given the quote under discussion here, you’re basing your argument on the claim “people have said it for a long time,” which is one of the bases for belief that the Kalama Sutta specifically rejects. How ironic! 🙂

It’s interesting that you think it’s a fake when even the Buddists think it is a real quote. I just visited one of the very few Buddist Temples and they had the exact “fake” quote displayed at their temple. I am more inclined to believe monks ,who actually speak the language and are able to make comparisons, than you.

you wrote ” So at the moment my hypothesis is that in his 1951 lecture, Sayagyi U Ba Khin was loosely paraphrasing the Kalama Sutta from memory,”

who told you that ? wow you really need some serious thinking to do , before you even write anything as this . esp. in context to a world famous Master Sayagyi U Ba Khin . And then adding ” Sayagyi U Ba Khin was loosely paraphrasing the Kalama Sutta from memory,”

And for your information the book ” 2500 Buddha Jayanti” was written by Shri. Ananda W.P. Guruge . A very well known scholar and also if you have not read the book then how do you know the exact Page no. 39?

“2500 Buddha Jayanti” was not written by Guruge. It was edited by him. As I can gather, the book is a compilation of talks, and thus the quality of the information therein depends on the individual speakers, not on the editor.

One edition of the book is available on Google Books. It’s searchable, so you can find out whether it contains a particular phrase and what page it’s on, but you can’t see the complete contents. Unfortunately my local library has been unable to obtain a copy.

[Update: it was searchable on Google Books. That particular edition seems to have been removed from the index.]

Born and raised in a Buddhist family here, and practised for decades. Please give me the archaeological evidence where it mentioned Buddha was not born in one of the Hindu castes and not a prince. Then we can discuss further. Your information is contradicting with what I learnt, but I’d go with science. And, if you’re looking for more reliable source of Buddha script, you must go for the ones documented in Pali language and Theravada Buddhism.

The evidence is not archaeological, but textual, and from the Pali scriptures. There’s plenty of good scholarship around, analyzing these texts, if you want to go look for it.

Strangely, much of what we Buddhists “know” about the Buddha isn’t to be found in the Pali canon. For example, everyone “knows” his first name was Siddhattha. That’s not found anywhere in the scriptures. Everyone “knows” the Buddha left home after seeing the “four sights.” That’s not in the scriptures (or not applying to him — the Buddha does tell this story but it’s about someone else).

What we, as Buddhists, “know” about the Buddha is often not from the scriptures, but from later commentaries. It actually takes a lot of effort to set aside that “knowledge” and look at what the scriptures actually say!

Why don’t you provide me with references to the Pali scriptures showing that the Buddha was born as a Hindu and was the son of a king?

By commentaries I basically mean everything in the Buddhist tradition that isn’t the suttas or vinaya, right up to and including modern books about Buddhism. Such commentaries can be very useful in explaining the Buddhadharma, but they also at times depart from the suttas and even replace the information in them (I’ve given you two examples already).

You don’t have the link or exact reference, do you? And, when did I say I read those in the original Pali script? You’re the one kept claiming and pointing at the Original Pali Scripture as the source without actually leaving any link or so. However, I had read them in our school textbooks (apart from translated religious books from practising buddhist monks) which are more reliable than from a random blogger claiming something without any reference link, isn’t it?

I’ve gone through your link quickly. Looked like you may have misunderstood several terms like- Caste system in Ancient India, Hinduism, Practitioner, non-practitioner etc. Wouldn’t really prefer wasting my time if it’s going nowhere, however, I’d love to unlearn and relearn without having to spend much time!

Your question is faulty, which is why I haven’t answered it. You asked for “evidence where it mentioned Buddha was not born in one of the Hindu castes and not a prince.” You’re asking for the Pali texts to state a negative regarding the Buddha’s birth status and non-royalty, which is not something they do. What the Pali texts offer us is a portrait of a man who was born into a society which was an oligarchy, governed by a council, and not a kingdom. Therefore he was not a prince in the sense that we would understand that term. They offer no evidence that the family of the Buddha-to-be followed any sort of Brahminical tradition, or even that such a tradition was common in the Sakyan country.

I of course have no idea what you read in your school textbooks, but generally most texts simply repeat the stories that the commentarial tradition developed. I’d imagine that your books gave the familiar account of the Four Sights too, didn’t they? And as I’ve explained, that’s not something that’s in the scriptures (or it is, but it’s a story about someone else).

You claimed Buddha was not a hindu prince >> then I asked for the archaeological evidence of your claim>> then you said it’s just textual, from pali scriptures>> then I asked for it (web link/ exact page number of the book), yet you avoided, and instead asked me to give those links/references which I never claimed to have in original Pali script>> Then I questioned if you truly have the references I asked for>> then you blamed me of asking a faulty, illogical question, thereby avoided to provide the reference links again…….

However, I’m truly glad that I now know of peoples with entirely contradicting information that I’ve known. Someday if I have enough time and interest, I’d check them myself from the original scriptures. And, it’d save both of our time and energy if we end it right here. It’s very hard for me to resist curiosity upon receiving the email notification of your comment, so I’d appreciate if I stop receiving the notification. Peace.

I’ve said that your question is malformed in two ways: 1) You asked for archeological evidence that the Buddha was not a Hindu prince. What conceivable archeological evidence could there be for such a thing? The main evidence (and most specific) we have for the Buddha is textual, so we have to look at the scriptures. 2) You’re the one who is defending the claim that the Buddha was a) Hindu and b) a prince. It’s really beholden to you to support (from the scriptures) your claim for those things. A school textbook doesn’t really work!

As for my evidence, I’ve pointed you to a number of sources that support the conclusion that the Buddha was not a prince. If you’d like to follow those up and check the original sources, feel free. There’s plenty of evidence in the original scriptures, some of which is cited in the link I provided. This includes the facts that the Buddha didn’t live in a monarchy, and that (as you’d therefore expect) no royal palaces have been found in any of the archeological sites that are contenders for the Buddha’s home town. The word that’s sometimes translated as “palace” in reference to the Buddha’s childhood dwellings isn’t even the same word used for a royal palace — it’s more likely a term for a “mansion,” or a large and impressive house, not the dwelling of royalty.

I’m sure there’s a way of unsubscribing you from comment notifications. I’ll look and see what I can do!